It has come to light that actor Cho Jin-woong (49, legal name Cho Won-jun) committed serious crimes as a teenager and received a protective disposition, and controversy is spreading over the Juvenile Act's "non-disclosure principle." While many agree that the non-disclosure principle is important for juvenile offenders to return to society, some say this is an opportunity to revise provisions such as inquiry and response, which have not been amended for nearly 40 years.
According to the legal community on the 8th, Kim Kyung-ho, an attorney at Hoin, wrote on his social media (SNS) that at 9:20 p.m. on the previous day, he filed a complaint through the National Sinmungo against two reporters from the entertainment outlet Dispatch on suspicion of violating Article 70 (Inquiry and response) of the Juvenile Act. Article 70 of the Juvenile Act states, "Institutions related to juvenile protection cases shall not respond to any inquiries regarding the contents of the case, except when necessary for trial, investigation, or military purposes."
Attorney Kim argued, "If a reporter extracted this prohibited information through a public official or an insider, that is not reporting but a criminal act that illegally pierced a shield protected by law."
Earlier, Dispatch reported that Cho Jin-woong was involved in car theft and rape while attending high school. It also said that after becoming an adult, during his unknown-actor days, he was fined for assaulting a theater troupe member and once had his license revoked for drunk driving. Through his agency, Cho acknowledged the juvenile offender allegations but said he was not involved in acts related to rape. Cho announced his retirement on the 6th.
The particularity of the Juvenile Act is at issue. Under Article 1, "to take necessary measures such as protective dispositions for environmental adjustment and behavior correction of juveniles with antisocial tendencies, and to provide special measures for criminal dispositions to help juveniles grow up soundly," the law contains numerous non-disclosure provisions. Representative examples include Article 70, which is the basis for the complaint, as well as Article 24, Paragraph 2 (non-public hearings), Article 30-2 (restrictions on viewing and copying records), and Article 68 (ban on reporting).
Experts are divided. Kim Hyuk, a professor in the Department of Law at National Pukyong University (standing director of the Korean Society of Juvenile Policy), assessed that the report runs counter to the purpose of the Juvenile Act. Kim said, "(The non-disclosure principle of the Juvenile Act) is meant to prevent social stigma and exclusion, so even if (a juvenile offender) becomes an adult, this principle must be observed," adding, "When incidents like this occur, the very possibility of improvement—of working to return to society after committing a crime as a juvenile—can be undermined."
However, many argue that the reports about Cho Jin-woong cannot be grounds for punishment. Kim Hee-gyun, a professor at the University of Seoul School of Law, said, "It is true that, after growing up, a juvenile offender should face no restrictions, but if, while Cho is active as a public figure, (details of the protective disposition, etc.) were disclosed for the public interest, it could be grounds to negate illegality."
Hwang Tae-jung, a professor in the Department of Police Administration at Kyonggi University (standing director of the Korean Society of Juvenile Policy), also said, "The intent is to punish those who, in the course of an ongoing juvenile case, come to know details through their duties and leak them, but I don't think it makes sense to file a complaint against reporters for reporting in the public interest."
As provisions related to the non-disclosure principle in the Juvenile Act have not been revised for a long time, there are issues that do not align with today's society. A representative example is a 2022 case in which a victim requested disclosure of the address to claim damages against a 15-year-old sex offender, but the court dismissed the request.
Article 70 of the Juvenile Act was newly established in 1963, and during the comprehensive revision of the Juvenile Act in 1988, "when necessary for military purposes" was added to the existing language as an exception to the ban on inquiry and response. While the requirements remained the same, only the amount of the fine for violations was raised over time.
Accordingly, there was broad agreement that the law needs to be revised to allow at least disclosure of information for serious crimes or victim relief.
Professor Kim Hee-gyun said, "In the past, there were not many heinous crimes by juvenile offenders, but now the nature of the crimes has worsened and cases have increased," adding, "I agree with the view that some information disclosure is necessary for purposes such as victim relief."
Professor Kim Hyuk also said, "It would be good if the Juvenile Act included a provision, like the Criminal Procedure Act, allowing victims to view and copy records," adding, "Even if the court makes the judgment, it needs to be guaranteed by statute."